Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/2026/1996 6/ 6 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL No. 2026 of 1996
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
=================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=================================================
GUJARAT
STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION - Appellant(s)
Versus
DINESHBHAI
NAGARDAS DARJI & 2 - Defendant(s)
=================================================
Appearance
:
MR
HARDIK C RAWAL for Appellant(s) :
1,
NOTICE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 1,
NOTICE UNSERVED for
Defendant(s) : 2,
MR ARUN H MEHTA for Defendant(s) :
3,
=================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 10/04/2006
ORAL
JUDGMENT
This
appeal is filed by the appellant ? original opponent No.2 ?
Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation under sec.173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and Award passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Mehsana in Motor Accident
Claims Petition No.493 of 1984 dtd.24/10/1990.
The
respondent No.1 herein ? original claimant sustained injury in the
vehicular accident which took place between ST Bus bearing
registration No.GRT-6935 and Jeep bearing registration NO.GRW-9606
which occurred on 14/3/1984 at about 10.30 hrs, on Patan Chanasma
Road. The driver of the Jeep also lost his life in the said
vehicular accident. The respondent No.1 herein ? original
claimant was one of the passengers in the Jeep. He preferred Motor
Accident Claim Petition No.493 of 1984 before the learned Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Mehsana claiming compensation of
Rs.9000.00 and the learned Tribunal by its impugned judgment and
award awarded Rs.5100.00 towards damages to the Jeep. Being
aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment judgment and award
passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Mehsana
in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.493 of 1984 dtd.24/10/1990, the
appellant ? original opponent No.2 has preferred the present First
Appeal.
The
main contention raised and the only submission made on behalf of the
appellant to assail the impugned judgment and award passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is on the point of negligence on the
ground of contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the
Jeep. It is submitted that the tribunal has materially erred in not
relying upon the version and/or the statement of driver of the ST
Bus and has materially erred in not holding the driver of the Jeep
as negligent in driving the Jeep, due to which the accident has
taken place and therefore, it is requested to allow the present
appeal.
On
the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of the respondent ?
original claimant that in the facts and circumstances of the case
and looking to the documentary evidence and on appreciation of
evidence, the tribunal has not held the driver of the Jeep as
negligent and has held the driver of the ST Bus solely responsible
and negligent for the accident in question and therefore, it is
required to dismiss the present appeal.
Heard
the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the parties and perused
the the documentary as well as oral evidence submitted by the
parties on record. I have gone through the finding recorded by the
Tribunal more particularly, para 10 of the impugned judgment and
award dealing with the negligence aspect on the part of the drivers
of the ST Bus and Jeep. Considering the evidence at Ex.55 and
considering the fact that the Bus was driven on a single track road
and it being a heavy vehicle, it was the duty of the driver of the
ST Bus to take more care and that the theory of the ST Bus driver
that the bus was stationary, has been disbelieved by the Tribunal
and accordingly, the Tribunal on appreciation of evidence has come
to the conclusion and recorded finding that the driver of the ST Bus
was solely negligent in driving the Bus, as a result of which, the
vehicular accident in question has taken place. On going through the
entire evidence on record, the aforesaid finding is not required to
be interfered with by this Court. The learned Tribunal was justified
in holding the driver of the ST Bus as sole negligent for the
accident in question. Even otherwise also, it is required to be
noted that this appeal is of 1992 and in fact the accident has
taken place in the year 1984. Except the aforesaid, no other
submissions have been made on behalf of the appellant.
Over
and above on the ground of smallness of the amount also, the present
appeal is required to be dismissed.
For
the reasons stated hereinabove, the petition fails and the same
deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. However,
there will be no order as to costs.
rafik (M.R.SHAH,J.)
Top